Of course you want to see my review of the book, hopefully will appear on
Amazon.com in a few days:

Shattering the Internet Mythicists (July 23, 2008)

by P (St. Petersburg, FL United States)

Having been aware of this so-called "debate" on the Internet (please
note: it is entirely an "online debate" not one advanced by serious
NT or historical Jesus scholars) since the mid 1990s, I am glad that J.P.
Holding has finally transcribed and edited some of his impressive "Tektonics"
online articles for an entire book on "Shattering the Christ Myth."
He and his amateur scholar contributors have pulled together an excellent set
of articles and chapters debunking both the "myth" hypothesis and
the "copycat" or "pagan parallel" thesis presented by many
an anti-Christian conspiracy buff and uninformed skeptic of historical
Christianity.

Chapters include an introduction on the history and origin of the "Christ
myth" claims dating from the early 1800s; detailed defenses of the
standard non-biblical references to Jesus from the Jewish historian Josephus
(his two passages), the Roman historian Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny the Younger,
and Papias; responses to the various "silences" argued by "mythicists"
from Remsburg to G.A. Wells to Earl Doherty; analysis of the supposed
"pagan Christs" from Mithra to Krishna to Horus to Dionysos; reviews
and refutations exposing the abysmal scholarship and poor arguments of recent
"Christ myth" movies "The God Who Wasn't There" and
"Zeitgeist"; and additional material on the city of Nazareth, the
academic and Internet mythicists, and more.

This book shows there is really nothing at all to the "mythicist"
claims: they are groundless historically, poorly argued based on
"silence" and refuted by numerous reliable witnesses to Jesus, and
that includes the canonical Gospels and the earliest writings of St. Paul. The
real debate among scholars is not whether there was a historical Jesus who was
crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD, but on Christ's claims to
divinity and being the unique Son of God, the miracles of the Gospels as signs
of that divinity, and especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ --
i.e. the whole "Jesus of history" vs. "Christ of faith"
debate among conservative evangelical and more "liberal"
scholarship.

Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels: "There is simply nothing
intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or
at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a
historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells,
who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts
the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'." ("Josh McDowell's
'Evidence' for Jesus")

British historian Michael Grant: "...if we apply to the New Testament, as
we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient
writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus'
existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose
reality as historical figures is never questioned...To sum up, modern critical
methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been
answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious
scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any
rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger,
indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (Jesus: An
Historian's Review of the Gospels [1977], pages 199, 200)

Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright: "It is quite difficult to know where to
start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a
historian, I want to say we have got almost as much good evidence for Jesus as
for anyone in the ancient world....the evidence fits so well with what we know
of the Judaism of the period....that I think there are hardly any historians
today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence
of Jesus [aside from one or two]....It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a
very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question
can be put to rest." ("The Self-Revelation of God in Human
History" from There Is A God by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham
Varghese [2007])

Robert Van Voorst: "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically
viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they
relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of
Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly
question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as
effectively refuted." (Jesus Outside the New Testament [2000],
pages 6, 14, 16)

My only complaint is the book is slightly "oversized" so it is not
the size of your normal paperback and may not fit easily on your bookshelf.
Nevertheless a definite 5-star effort from apologist J.P. Holding and company.

P

Annihilating the Christ Myth

aa << This does not make much sense. In 1977, Grant wrote Christ-myth
theory annihilated by first rank scholars, now 30 years later, J P Holding
writes that the Jesus-myth is shattered. >>

OK, I'll try to explain, but I'm no expert on this topic. You should go ahead
and get the J.P. Holding book, and write your own fair and detailed review.

Here's my "story"....

In the mid-1990s I became aware of this whole "Jesus myth" thing
from some radical skeptic forums I was involved with on Usenet and FidoNet
(particularly the old obnoxious "HolySmoke" forum). At the time I
was a beginning Internet "Catholic lay apologist" (mainly inspired
by Karl Keating and Catholic
Answers) trying to sort out the whole Catholic-Protestant
"fundamentalist" debate thing (along with a few Greek/Eastern
Orthodox Christians too), and occasionally ventured into the skeptic-Christian
debate. At that time the 80-year-old essay by M.
M. Mangasarian "The Truth about Jesus : Is He a Myth?" (orig
1909) I remember was regularly posted at HolySmoke and elsewhere. That was my
introduction to the "Jesus myth" claims, and I found this very
strange that someone would actually deny Jesus even existed. Sure atheists
believed God didn't exist, I knew that already. But that there was no
historical Jesus? I never heard that before.

This was back in 1994-95 for me, before Earl Doherty went online, and slightly
before the "Internet Infidels" became a site I believe. Other
atheists I found online in various discussion forums recommended books by G.A.
Wells who was the only well-known "Jesus myth" scholar. What
I didn't know, but later found out, was he was not really a credentialed or
professional NT or Jesus scholar, but a teacher of German. Wells had also
changed his mind about this time, and now writes in his 2004 book:

"Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book, and
Earl Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest
Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all.
I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me
by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without
troubling to see wherein they consist." (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the
New Testament [2004], page 4)

Wells is now saying he never really believed the "mythicist"
claim. In the 1970s however, Wells had at least two books that many atheists
and skeptics interpreted as arguing for the "Jesus myth" position,
and these are probably the books that Michael Grant is referring to above in
his 1977 book on Jesus, along with the earlier "Jesus myth" scholars
(very few of them) dating back to the late 19th, early 20th century.

These are outlined in J.P. Holding's book in the chapter by James Hannam
"A Historical Introduction to the Myth that Jesus Never Existed." So
yes, the "Jesus myth" position had a very few adherents, beginning
explicitly with Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), and later Arthur Drews The Christ
Myth (1911), then John M. Robertson (1856-1933) The Historical Jesus
(1916) and The Jesus Problem (1917) which argued Jesus was based on
some sort of pre-Christian myth, and in the United States by John Remsburg The
Christ (1909) that Jesus was a pagan god, and mathematician William B.
Smith. However, Hannam writes:

"The generation of Jesus Mythologists represented by Smith and Robertson
died out in the 1920s. They had based their work on theories about mythology
from the 'history of religions' school but scholarship itself moved on,
leaving the Jesus Mythologists high and dry....[but] a few amateurs trudged
on....It was not until 1971 that the Jesus Myth burst back into life with the
work of a polite and erudite Professor of German...George Albert Wells (1926-
)." (J.P. Holding, Shattering, chapter by Hannam, page xiv-xvi)

By the 1920s the earliest "mythicist" claims were answered,
annihilated, shattered, and obliterated, and then later in the 1970s when they
re-surfaced with G.A. Wells, his bogus claims were again answered,
annihilated, shattered and obliterated by such historians as Michael Grant,
once again in the 1980s (since Wells was still publishing his books) by the
evangelical scholar R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), and then in
the 1990s when Doherty replaced Wells as the primary "Jesus myth"
scholar/historian for the skeptic/atheist community, the J.P. Holding online
articles (and now his oversized book) answers, annihilates, shatters, and
obliterates their claims all over again in excruciating detailed fashion (in
my opinion, read the book for yourself).

Maybe when Doherty admits Jesus existed in a new edition of his book (like
Wells did), then Richard Carrier will take over as the new
"scholar/historian" for the "Jesus myth" claims and come
up with new (or new and improved) arguments from silence for "mythicism."
You never know....

It is also true (just as I said) that this whole "debate" is limited
to mainly online discussion forums (such as the Infidels.org) and web sites
(and a couple of self-published books) and isn't addressed by professionals
anymore, and is simply ignored by mainstream biblical scholarship and modern
historical Jesus studies. E.G. see the
Crossans vs. the Craigs, the
Borgs vs. the Wrights, the Jesus Seminar or more "liberal"
types vs. the evangelicals, or traditional or moderate Catholic scholars like Raymond
Brown or John
P. Meier, etc. None of these guys are "mythicists" and they
do not even address them or their "arguments." Why? Because there is
no real "debate" on the subject, never has been. That is my
understanding after carefully studying this subject as an amateur the past 10+
years.

Historical Criteria

Steven << We shall never know, unless Phil reproduces the criteria
that Grant used to definitely state that Jesus existed. >>

I have Michael Grant's 1977 edition of his book, I might be able to type in
some of his criteria. Also you are correct that R.T. France conceded the point
to Wells on Tacitus, France says: "I find Wells' argument entirely
convincing. Tacitus' reference to 'Christus' is evidence only for what was
believed about Christian origins at the time he wrote, and there is plenty of
other evidence for that." (France, Evidence for Jesus, page 23
[1986 edition]). France concedes that Tacitus is not necessarily independent
testimony. But on all other evidence, France argues against Wells. J.P.
Holding's book argues differently on Tacitus, citing various scholars.

BTW, Yes I am sure. Tacitus takes up 3 or 4 pages in France's book, Suetonius
a page, Pliny the Younger a page, Josephus 8 pages. The R.T. France book The
Evidence for Jesus is 190+ pages so obviously there is more to the
book than the non-biblical references to Jesus. He doesn't concede everything
to Wells, he simply agrees that Tacitus does not provide "independent
testimony" and that Suetonius and Pliny the Younger give us no additional
information about Jesus.

The chapters in the France book are "Non-Christian Evidence" (40
pages), "Christian Evidence Outside the NT" (about 30 pages),
"Evidence of the NT" (55 pages), "Evidence of Archaeology"
(18 pages), and "Jesus in History" (10 pages). The main G.A. Wells
arguments to fall is the supposed "silence of Paul" about Jesus and
the unreliability of the NT. Not only France The Evidence for Jesus
(1986) demolishes Wells, but also Habermas The Historical Jesus: Ancient
Evidence for the Life of Christ (1996) demolishes Wells, and Boyd/Eddy The
Jesus Legend (2007) demolishes both Wells and Doherty, and now J.P.
Holding Shattering the Christ Myth also demolishes both Wells and
Doherty (in my opinion). Remember G.A. Wells says he never held to the "mythicist
position" in the first place! Although many scholars certainly have
interpreted his first 2 or 3 books to teach just that.

As for Michael Grant's historical criterion, although he does not directly
address Wells or his arguments, I find him more believable than Wells. Grant
is certainly more credentialed to write as a historian on the topic: Michael
Grant has been a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Professor of Humanity
at Edinburgh Univ, and President and Vice-Chan of the Queen's Univ, Belfast.
He holds Doctorates of Cambridge, Dublin, and Belfast. His books include The
Twelve Caesars, The Army of the Caesars, The Annals of Imperial
Rome, and Saint Paul. He is not a believer, but a skeptic.

"Yet one large, nagging doubt may well still be lodged in the minds of
some of those who have read the foregoing chapters. It is this: what reason
have we for supposing that the facts as narrated by the Gospels, and presented
-- with such explanations as I have felt to be necessary -- in the course of
this book, deserve any degree of belief whatsoever, from the standpoint of
historical accuracy?....[this] will require some explanation and
justification. In particular, [we] want to have some account of the principles
that need to be followed, and the methods that need to be adopted, in deciding
which portions of the Gospels can be accepted as historical fact as they
stand, or accepted with due reservations or interpretations, or rejected
altogether as fictitious inventions by the evangelists or their sources. To
offer an adequate answer to these demands is a notoriously hard and
challenging task -- as the discussions in the course of this book have
already, surely, shown. But it must now, briefly, be attempted." (Grant, Jesus:
An Historian's Review, page 195-196)

In the next appendix (page 197ff) "Attitudes to the Evidence" some
points from Grant are:

there are three possible approaches: one can write as a believer, or as an
unbeliever, or as Grant has attempted "as a student of history
seeking...to employ methods that make belief or unbelief irrelevant."

some partial measure of skepticism regarding the Gospel stories is
inevitable, if historical standards are going to be applied; this started
extremely early, and inside the Church itself as Origen (third century AD)
conceded to his pagan opponents that some passages in the Gospels were by no
means literal, and indeed absurd or impossible;

this skeptical approach reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus
as a human being never existed at all and is a myth; convincing refutations of
this "Christ-myth" hypothesis can be made from an appeal to method
(backgrounds in Judaism; similar criteria applied to other ancient writings
containing historical material; pagan personages whose reality as historical
figures is never questioned; etc);

certainly there are discrepancies between one Gospel and another, and
there was a growth of legend round Jesus, and it rose very quickly; but the
same can be said for such figures as Alexander the Great yet nobody regards
him as mythical and fictitious;

modern critical methods fail to support the "Christ-myth"
theory; it has again and again been answered by first-rate scholars; in recent
years (1977) no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity
of Jesus (except G.A. Wells two 1970s books which he mentions in a footnote);

the historian must first try to decide as best he can, what Jesus said and
did, and to consider the significance of (including what Jesus himself
attached to) those words and deeds;

the view an historian should take is that everything the evangelists say
must be assumed correct until it is proved wrong; the opposite view, that all
contents of the Gospels must be assumed fictitious until they are proved
genuine is too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields;
for example: when one builds up facts derived from accounts by pagan
historians, judgment often has to be given not in the light of any external
confirmation, but on the basis of historical deductions and arguments which
attain nothing better than probability -- the same applies to the Gospels;

other criterion he mentions are "multiple attestation"; or
"attestation by multiple forms" (if a motif is presented more than
once in different literary forms, it is more likely genuine); a rejection from
the lifetime of Jesus of all material which seems to be derived from the days
of the Christian Church as it existed after his death (although difficult to
apply this correctly, it provides "our principal valid method of
research"); and "form criticism" to eliminate from the Gospels
the accretions that were introduced after Jesus' death; also to "look out
for surprises" -- anything "really surprising" in the Gospels
is quite likely to be authentic (i.e. that which clashes with what we should expect
to find in something written after the time of Jesus);

There's more, but here is Grant's conclusion: "The consistency,
therefore, of the [Jesus] tradition in their [the Gospels] pages suggests that
the picture they present is largely authentic. By such methods information
about Jesus can be derived from the Gospels. And that is what this book has
tried to do." (page 204)

Special Pleading?

Steven << Grant's methods are simply special pleading, as he has no
real evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. >>

Read Grant's book or the Boyd/Eddy book. The Gospels are the evidence you are
looking for. Josephus also stands (both passages, one partially authentic),
see the long detailed chapter on Josephus in J.P. Holding's book. Did you
forget that even G.A. Wells says he never fully believed the
"Christ-myth" claim (see his 2004 book which I quoted) ? BTW, Judas
is mentioned in all four Gospels (e.g. Matt 10:2ff) and Acts. So is
Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Acts, and the NT letters. That's enough for most
historians (like Michael Grant).

1920 to 1970

Earl Doherty << And who are the "first-rank scholars" who
have dealt out annihilation prior to Dunkerly's and Betz's claims? >>

You may be right on the "lack of annihilation" from "first-rank
scholars" but of course there weren't ever that many books and scholars
on the "Jesus myth" claims to answer and/or annihilate in the first
place. It looks like Dunkerly (Beyond the Gospels, 1957) and/or Betz (What
Do We Know About Jesus, 1968) only had to annihilate the arguments from
two or three "Jesus myth" books of their time period (A. Robertson,
H. Cutner, and John Allegro, see titles/dates below). The opposite question
might be posed:

Who are the first-rank scholars from 1920 to 1970 who even postulated the
non-historicity of Jesus (that Jesus did not exist) ?

Apparently, according to the Hannam chapter in J.P. Holding's book, after the
few books that did postulate this in the early 20th century:

"The
generation of Jesus Mythologists represented by [William B.] Smith and [John
M.] Robertson died out in the 1920s. They had based their work on theories of
mythology from the history of religions school but scholarship itself moved
on, leaving the Jesus Mythologists high and dry...." (Holding, Shattering
the Christ Myth, chapter by James Hannam, page xv)

On the whole "history of religions" approach to scholarship,
Eddy/Boyd note:

"While the claim that aspects of the Christian view of
Jesus parallel, even are indebted to, ancient pagan legends and myths has a
long history, it gained prominence with the birth of the history of religions
school (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries....The history of religions school was extremely popular
in academic circles for several decades, but owing to trenchant critiques by
such scholars as Samuel Cheetham [1897], H.A.A. Kennedy [1913], J. Gresham
Machen [1925], A.D. Nock [1964], Bruce Metzger [1968], and Gunter Wagner
[1967], it eventually fell out of fashion." (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus
Tradition [Baker Academic, 2007], pages 134,136).

They also
mention a book by W.D. Davies and D. Daube [1956] with a chapter on the demise
of the "history of religions" school.

Besides the first "Jesus mythers" from the early 20th century (e.g.
Arthur Drews, who claimed all of Paul's letters were forgeries), Hannam names
P.L. Couchoud The Enigma of Jesus (1924) who was a medical doctor, not
a biblical scholar, and a French book La Fable de Jesus Christ (1967)
by G. Fan. Then there's Archibald Robertson Jesus: Myth or History
(1949) and Herbert Cutner Jesus: God, Man or Myth? (1950). In the 1960s
there was John Allegro and his "sacred mushroom" hypothesis.

Was there anybody else?

Among the thousands upon thousands of books and journal articles published on
the historical Jesus and Jesus-like topics by thousands of various biblical or
classical scholars and historians, can you name any others from 1920 to 1970
(a period of 50 years), that accepted these "great arguments" of the
"Jesus myth" types that supposedly weren't rebutted (or annihilated)
properly 100 years ago? Why did these "great arguments" for
"Jesus mythicism" die out in mainstream scholarship in the 1920s?
Why were these "great arguments" ignored for 50 years?

Maybe Hannam is leaving out a TON of "Jesus myth" scholars from 1920
to 1970 that you know about? Please tell me. BTW, here are the books I own on
this topic so far:

Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1977)The Evidence for Jesus by R.T. France (Intervarsity Press, 1986)A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (volume 1) by John P.
Meier (Anchor / Doubleday, 1991)The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant by
John Dominic Crossan (HarperSanFrancisco, 1991)The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders (The Penguin Press,
1993)Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus
edited by Wilkins / Moreland (Zondervan, 1995)The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth
of the Traditional Gospels by L.T. Johnson (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996)Jesus and the Victory of God by N. T. Wright (Fortress, 1996)The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary
Habermas (College Press, 1996)Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? : A Debate between William Lane Craig
and John Dominic Crossan (Baker Academic, 1998)The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason, 1999, 2005)Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
by Robert van Voorst (Eerdmans, 2000)The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?
by Robert M. Price (Prometheus, 2003)What Have They Done With Jesus? by Ben Witherington III (HarperSanFrancisco,
2006)Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Craig
Evans (Intervarsity, 2006)The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic
Jesus Tradition by Eddy / Boyd (Baker Academic, 2007)Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI (Doubleday, 2007)Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? edited by James
Patrick Holding (Xulon Press, 2008)

I now own all of these books but it's gonna take some time to read them all a
couple times so I understand the arguments. Hope to finish Part
2 of my little "historical Jesus" project by Christmas 2008.
Part 2 will summarize what I consider the best evidence for Jesus (arguments
and data culled from the above books), a brief refutation of "The God Who
Wasn't There" DVD, and the best responses to Doherty's book. Part
1 on "pagan parallels" is finished. I am an amateur, like
most of us, and like Peter Kirby (thanks for his review of Habermas), but I do
enjoy this "online debate" we have (even if it's ignored by
mainstream scholarship).

A Billion Believers

aa << You actually BELIEVE in your heart that Jesus ROSE from the
DEAD, floated through the clouds and will come back for you when you DIE in
Jesus Christ. >>

And I actively go out of my way to read the best stuff against my beliefs as
well. I am unique like that. I have one Robert Price book, one G.A. Wells
book, the Doherty book, several atheist books (Dan Barker, Vic Stenger,
Richard Dawkins, David Mills, George Smith, etc), and I defend evolution often
at the Catholic Answers boards. Hooray!

Real Debate

ChristMyth << The idea that this Jesus was "Christ" however
is still something that needs to be shown to be valid. In my mind, it is his
divinity that is in question. >>

That's the "real" scholarly debate. The "historical Jesus
didn't exist" isn't a valid debate in today's NT or Jesus scholarship.
The "Jesus of history" vs. the "Christ of faith" is what
divides traditional Catholics and conservative evangelicals on the one side,
from "Jesus Seminar" or more "liberal" branches of
Christian scholars on the other. The Wrights vs. the Borgs (The Meaning of
Jesus: Two Visions), the Craigs vs. the Crossans (Will the Real Jesus
Please Stand Up?), and that is a more "respectable" debate in my
opinion since at least it represents a sizeable number of people on each side.

This "historical Jesus didn't exist" business is only found here on
this site, other spin-off atheist or "freethought" sites, other
eccentrics and cranks (Acharya S, Freke/Gandy), and one semi-scholarly book
today: Earl Doherty's. And J.P. Holding's book does a number on all of these.

Please Make Sense

aa << You are just not making sense. You appear to just chatter
about shatter. >>

I thought the message was clear and I've been consistent. Here it is again:

there are people on the Internet who "think" there is this
"big debate" going on about whether an historical Jesus existed
(these are people who ONLY read Internet Infidels, Rational Responders, and
other atheist/skeptic/freethought sites, but ignore mainstream NT or Jesus
scholarship);

J.P. Holding's book was written for such people, or for other people
(like myself) who know there is no real debate on this topic but would like
the best arguments against "Jesus mythicism" anyway, so they can
engage in this bogus "online debate";

The truth in actual NT and Jesus scholarship is there is no debate on
whether Jesus existed since it was shattered 100 years ago, again 50 years
ago, again 30 years ago (e.g. Michael Grant), again 20 years ago (e.g. R.T.
France), again 10 years ago (e.g. John P. Meier), again last year (e.g.
Eddy/Boyd), and again a couple weeks ago by J.P. Holding and company (i.e.
there wasn't much shattering necessary, just the few cranks, eccentrics on
"copycat" and "pagan parallel" conspiracies, and some
"scholarly" arguments from silence that need answering);

The real debate is between more conservative or "traditional"
biblical scholars (Catholic, or evangelical, or Orthodox) who affirm Jesus
Christ is the Son of God, and those liberals or modernist scholars
(Catholic, or Protestant, or Orthodox or skeptics) and others who reject
that.